>> These societies were smart in that they provided environment for development or work of innovators...
What nurturing environment? Permanent strife and turmoil? Why do you think that these societies were more receptive to inventions than any other societies? The contemporary thinkers, artists, innovators and inventors bitterly complained about the impenetrable obstinacy, stupidity, and resistence of they fellow countrymen, the endless strife and misery. Do you really believe that Savonarola's Florence was the best setting for Michelangelo? That Sokrates forced to drink hemlock by his fellow Athenians received great support from them in his salad days? They were lucky to avoid starving to death or ending up on the stake, and that is approximately as far as the support of the society ever went. You mistake the explosion of creativity at the outset of something new, which happens serendipously, with a sort of "nurturing environment." At the moment of the invention of philosophy and science, you would find the most momentous discoveries being made en masse. At the moment of solidification of language, you will find the best poets and writers in this language, etc. Think of something particular, say, quantum mechanics. Was Germany of 1920 a nurturing society for physicists? It was not. A few quite random breakthroughs rapidly produced the whole cluster of discoveries. The same goes for Greece, the same goes for the Renaissance. The society mattered as far as it (temporarily) left these people alone and provided some absolute minimum for their survival. As for the Ethiopians, the answer is much more prosaic than you think: before any invention is possible, you have to invent the idea that innovation and invention are not only possible but result in a greater good. This may sound like a trivial idea to you, but it is neither obvious nor necessarily correct and the majority of human societies never engendered it. They took slow, gradualistic approach of tinkering with the known never coming anywhere close to the Promethean model of invention. This model is one of the greatest inventions of our civilization made by chance.
The rest of your argument depends on your doctrine of the "smart" society that I find ungrounded in fact. I wish you were right, though. Alas, your "smart" society is a utopia projected unto the glorious past. What you see around is the smartest it gets and it has never been any better. Perhaps it is better this way. The most beautiful flowers are found in the wild.
This is a dark view of humanity which I really do not share. I am sorry if I offended you or misunderstood the tone of your original piece. I took it to be annoyed but essentially lighthearted, in addition to being your usual kind of interesting, thought-provoking fun piece. I probably am one of its subjects. Yes, I think that Germany of 1920s was a fertile ground for physicists. My professor grandfather was studying there at the time, so I guess I got some third-hand feel for the atmosphere. I have reservations about Savonarola himself, but the Italian city-states' society was clearly good for art and science and innovating thought of all kinds. Savonarola was just a couple of years' long reaction episode, you can hardly claim that his influence was central for Michelangelo's development or for the fate of his creations. I do not know what kind of "nurture" you have in mind as best for "explosion of creativity", so I am not sure we disagree. The right atmosphere is a product of many causes some of which are obscure to me. What I am sure of is that a centralized material rewards system and an easy sheltered life for the selected few is not it. Diversity of population, freedom of movement and information are more important and were present to some extent in Greece, Italy, England and Germany at the relevant periods. I think that the many Greek contributions to the civilization were not a bunch of "random breakthroughs", not a reaction to "the invention of philosophy" but a prolonged effect of such atmosphere. If you mean that the time of Shakespeare was "the moment of solidification of language", what about Chaucer and Jane Austen? Of course, such a time would make a society particularly receptive to somebody like Pushkin. So, Amhara was never "solidified", was it? Why there are more good American writers than, say, Brazilian or Chinese - is it just because there are more educated people in the US? You are right - I do not understand your "invention that innovation is good" argument. Socrates had not only enemies but also listeners who were so interested that even now we know of him. The idea that his "innovations" were "good" is neither here nor there. I bet that an Ethiopian Socrates did not even have any unusual enemies - just nobody was interested. He himself was taught by his society to drop his own interest, which was the greatest shame of all. Yes, today's Western society is "smart", however much we complain about the individual stupidity of most of its members. I am not sure if it is smarter" than the best historical examples. Does it become smarter each day - I think it stopped doing that and may start reversing soon.
You are raising good points, but my view of humanity is not dark, you've got that wrong. I just do not believe in "smart" societies; that's all. I also do not want to badmouth our society for not being smart or insufficiently nurturing of the geniuses. It is about as smart as can be humanely expected, and none of our systemic problems arise from its stupidity, ignorance, or other of its many faults. It is tempting to blame the society for everything, but the receding innovativeness is not due to something being fundamentally wrong about modern society. There were far worse societies that were far more inventive.
I'm annoyed because I used to think just like you when I was younger, and so arguing with you is like arguing with my younger self; which is very unpleasant (perhaps you'll have such an experience one day, too). Please, do not take it hard. I am displeased with myself rather than you. I've spent years dreaming: if only I'd be there, at the hub, at the right time in the right place - how different it would be... How much easier it is to wade with the current pushing you then opposing you. Then I read more about these times and undestood that it was all wishful thinking: the current was as strong then as it ever was; you always needed giant strides to move forward, and the only thing that helped was stumbling upon a new spring, which happened rarely, very rarely.
Germany of 1920 was not nurturing for intellectual endeavors, it was a sick society nobody deserved living in, and Renaissance Florence was a cloaca of vice. Truly, there is no "right atmosphere;" great innovation occurs against the usual background of hatred and ignorance. I do not think that your examples suggest that the innovation bursts once the society reaches the golden age of sorts, in any sense of this word. Rather, it is the internal logic of the great innovation leading to more innovation until the potential of this initial breakthrough is exhausted, which happens rather sooner than later. Look critically at your own arguments. Where the population has not been diverse? Was not medieval Europe in the Dark Ages the scene of constant migration? Etc., etc. Surely, you need the bare minimum of civility in the society, but that is as far as the "nurturing" goes. You look at the isolated examples of rapid innovative bursts and convince yourself that something very special was about the societies housing these rare bursts. The only similarity was that these were ascending societies, but even that was not always true. I doubt that the type of the society matters at all, except that it accepts change in principle - as a principle of good. If you consider this vague acceptance as the qualification for "nurture," then we have little to argue about. There must be shared realization that changing things with good results is possible. Beyond that, I see little similarity. What is important about these societies is that such an argument had preceded the burst and was accepted before it, for various reasons -- that differed greatly from one place to another. I agree that sheltered life is not the qualification, but there should be minimal assurance that the innovator will not be destroyed (socially isolated, humiliated,...) I've been looking for the "right" facet of the "right atmosphere," like you do now, and it has always been like the explanations of the fall of the Rome: one is given dozens of reasons none of which is convincing. At some point, it dawned upon me that this guesswork led nowhere. Invariably, it is the most obvious and mundane thing which is the greatest block to innovation. Once this block is gone, there is a flood of rapid innovation - until another such block is reached. What you observe is the internal dynamics of this convulsive process that is post factum rationalized in terms of "nurturing" or "smart" societies by people deluding themselves that reproducing some of these conditions will lead to another such burst. It never does.
As for the Chaucer, he appeared at the moment of English becoming the language of literaly exploits, so it is poor counter example. Jane Austens I am not talking about; we were discussing true greatness rather than the current fashion. Surely, one can find a handful of good writers in century or two; that Brazil has produced fewer than the US, provided that it is true, does not change the argument. The ones we consider to be our best will be forgotten in 50 years. Rather, look at those who are universally considered to be the greatest of the great - you will notice that they do tend to be at the beginnings rather than in the middles. The greatest oil painters will be in the beginning of oil painting. The best composers of contrapunctial music will be found at the beginning of this particular music, etc. Poets follow this general rule; language is just their medium. Even Jane Austen is found at a time when psychological novel was still somewhat of a novelty.
Goodness of the innovation matters. It is relevant. You do need the concept of the acceptability of new ideas as the necessary precondition. The usual mode of thinking is that (i) no innovation is required and (ii) it will only upset things that are already fragile. Both of these considerations are absolutely true. You need exceptional circumstances for this mental pattern to change, even for a brief period of time. And even that is not enough. Before Ethyopian Socrates, you need Ethyopian Thales and Ethyopian Pythagoras.
What nurturing environment? Permanent strife and turmoil? Why do you think that these societies were more receptive to inventions than any other societies? The contemporary thinkers, artists, innovators and inventors bitterly complained about the impenetrable obstinacy, stupidity, and resistence of they fellow countrymen, the endless strife and misery. Do you really believe that Savonarola's Florence was the best setting for Michelangelo? That Sokrates forced to drink hemlock by his fellow Athenians received great support from them in his salad days? They were lucky to avoid starving to death or ending up on the stake, and that is approximately as far as the support of the society ever went. You mistake the explosion of creativity at the outset of something new, which happens serendipously, with a sort of "nurturing environment." At the moment of the invention of philosophy and science, you would find the most momentous discoveries being made en masse. At the moment of solidification of language, you will find the best poets and writers in this language, etc. Think of something particular, say, quantum mechanics. Was Germany of 1920 a nurturing society for physicists? It was not. A few quite random breakthroughs rapidly produced the whole cluster of discoveries. The same goes for Greece, the same goes for the Renaissance. The society mattered as far as it (temporarily) left these people alone and provided some absolute minimum for their survival. As for the Ethiopians, the answer is much more prosaic than you think: before any invention is possible, you have to invent the idea that innovation and invention are not only possible but result in a greater good. This may sound like a trivial idea to you, but it is neither obvious nor necessarily correct and the majority of human societies never engendered it. They took slow, gradualistic approach of tinkering with the known never coming anywhere close to the Promethean model of invention. This model is one of the greatest inventions of our civilization made by chance.
The rest of your argument depends on your doctrine of the "smart" society that I find ungrounded in fact. I wish you were right, though. Alas, your "smart" society is a utopia projected unto the glorious past. What you see around is the smartest it gets and it has never been any better. Perhaps it is better this way. The most beautiful flowers are found in the wild.
Reply
Yes, I think that Germany of 1920s was a fertile ground for physicists. My professor grandfather was studying there at the time, so I guess I got some third-hand feel for the atmosphere. I have reservations about Savonarola himself, but the Italian city-states' society was clearly good for art and science and innovating thought of all kinds. Savonarola was just a couple of years' long reaction episode, you can hardly claim that his influence was central for Michelangelo's development or for the fate of his creations.
I do not know what kind of "nurture" you have in mind as best for "explosion of creativity", so I am not sure we disagree. The right atmosphere is a product of many causes some of which are obscure to me. What I am sure of is that a centralized material rewards system and an easy sheltered life for the selected few is not it. Diversity of population, freedom of movement and information are more important and were present to some extent in Greece, Italy, England and Germany at the relevant periods. I think that the many Greek contributions to the civilization were not a bunch of "random breakthroughs", not a reaction to "the invention of philosophy" but a prolonged effect of such atmosphere.
If you mean that the time of Shakespeare was "the moment of solidification of language", what about Chaucer and Jane Austen? Of course, such a time would make a society particularly receptive to somebody like Pushkin. So, Amhara was never "solidified", was it? Why there are more good American writers than, say, Brazilian or Chinese - is it just because there are more educated people in the US?
You are right - I do not understand your "invention that innovation is good" argument. Socrates had not only enemies but also listeners who were so interested that even now we know of him. The idea that his "innovations" were "good" is neither here nor there. I bet that an Ethiopian Socrates did not even have any unusual enemies - just nobody was interested. He himself was taught by his society to drop his own interest, which was the greatest shame of all.
Yes, today's Western society is "smart", however much we complain about the individual stupidity of most of its members. I am not sure if it is smarter" than the best historical examples. Does it become smarter each day - I think it stopped doing that and may start reversing soon.
Reply
I'm annoyed because I used to think just like you when I was younger, and so arguing with you is like arguing with my younger self; which is very unpleasant (perhaps you'll have such an experience one day, too). Please, do not take it hard. I am displeased with myself rather than you. I've spent years dreaming: if only I'd be there, at the hub, at the right time in the right place - how different it would be... How much easier it is to wade with the current pushing you then opposing you. Then I read more about these times and undestood that it was all wishful thinking: the current was as strong then as it ever was; you always needed giant strides to move forward, and the only thing that helped was stumbling upon a new spring, which happened rarely, very rarely.
Germany of 1920 was not nurturing for intellectual endeavors, it was a sick society nobody deserved living in, and Renaissance Florence was a cloaca of vice. Truly, there is no "right atmosphere;" great innovation occurs against the usual background of hatred and ignorance. I do not think that your examples suggest that the innovation bursts once the society reaches the golden age of sorts, in any sense of this word. Rather, it is the internal logic of the great innovation leading to more innovation until the potential of this initial breakthrough is exhausted, which happens rather sooner than later. Look critically at your own arguments. Where the population has not been diverse? Was not medieval Europe in the Dark Ages the scene of constant migration? Etc., etc. Surely, you need the bare minimum of civility in the society, but that is as far as the "nurturing" goes. You look at the isolated examples of rapid innovative bursts and convince yourself that something very special was about the societies housing these rare bursts. The only similarity was that these were ascending societies, but even that was not always true. I doubt that the type of the society matters at all, except that it accepts change in principle - as a principle of good. If you consider this vague acceptance as the qualification for "nurture," then we have little to argue about. There must be shared realization that changing things with good results is possible. Beyond that, I see little similarity. What is important about these societies is that such an argument had preceded the burst and was accepted before it, for various reasons -- that differed greatly from one place to another. I agree that sheltered life is not the qualification, but there should be minimal assurance that the innovator will not be destroyed (socially isolated, humiliated,...) I've been looking for the "right" facet of the "right atmosphere," like you do now, and it has always been like the explanations of the fall of the Rome: one is given dozens of reasons none of which is convincing. At some point, it dawned upon me that this guesswork led nowhere. Invariably, it is the most obvious and mundane thing which is the greatest block to innovation. Once this block is gone, there is a flood of rapid innovation - until another such block is reached. What you observe is the internal dynamics of this convulsive process that is post factum rationalized in terms of "nurturing" or "smart" societies by people deluding themselves that reproducing some of these conditions will lead to another such burst. It never does.
Reply
Goodness of the innovation matters. It is relevant. You do need the concept of the acceptability of new ideas as the necessary precondition. The usual mode of thinking is that (i) no innovation is required and (ii) it will only upset things that are already fragile. Both of these considerations are absolutely true. You need exceptional circumstances for this mental pattern to change, even for a brief period of time. And even that is not enough. Before Ethyopian Socrates, you need Ethyopian Thales and Ethyopian Pythagoras.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment